User talk:Aan`allein
Copyright violations Hi there, I'm the original author of the following reports: http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Booksigning_April_4th_2001 http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Booksigning_April_5th_2001 http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Booksigning_April_6th_2001 http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Elf_Fantasy_Fair_April_7th_2001 http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Elf_Fantasy_Fair_April_8th_2001 I just found out about this wiki, and I really like the idea. However, I really dislike the license applied to all the content here. I have never licensed my reports under any license (so regular copyright applies), and am extremely unhappy with my reports now appearing to be licensed this way. Therefor, I'm respectfully asking you to completely delete the above reports (not just editing them as I could do myself, but to completely remove them). Note that I'm specifically not objecting to you having these reports - distribution of them is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. However, I do most strongly object to the GNU FDL, and the commercial re-use of content allowed by it. And since the GFDL is assumed/implied/bound to all wikia wikis, I'm really going to have to ask you to take down these reports. :( You can find an alternative version of the largest part of these reports at http://home.casema.nl/e.f.delaat/netherlands.html Below follows the conversation I had about this at the #wikia channel (I am ): Is there any way to have articles up on a wikia wiki which are not licensed under the GFDL? I just found out that a number of large texts I wrote half a dozen years ago were copy/pasted to a special interest wikia wiki. In general I'm happy for this to happen - but I'm not happy with the GFDL. if it's under a GFDL-compatible license, you should just be able to copy it and add attribution I'd hate to go and be annoying and request their takedown, though They have never been licensed as anything - so right now they're a copyright violation. if it's copied directly from you and they don't allow copying and modification of it and/or they don't provide proper attribuion, you can force them to take it down or relicense it svl: What they should do is instead link to the original work. Starnestommy: ok, but can relicensed content still remain on the wiki? So an exception saying "this page is not available under the GDFL"? or incorporate it in specific references, but not repeat any more than partial quotes that highlight individual quotes. svl: I think they can do that. I do not think that is the right way to do it. There is an expectation that the entire wiki will be under the GFDL. svl: once a page is GFDL licenced, it can never be undone Others may copy the wiki without taking heed of that page's individual licensing. it's done all the time with fair-use and non-GFDL images Randomtime: I think that it was not their right to put it under the GFDL in the first place. if it was under a GFDL-compatible license, it's safe As he said, it was not under any license. :-) GreenReaper: aha, if it wasn't licenced beforehadn and they stuck a GFDL licence on it, then it can be taken down, I just add a note if it's not copyrighted yeah, someone just came in and copied my texts, and I only just found out now. svl: that sucks takedown notices I hate having to do takedown notice though. :( In general I really support the existence of this wiki - I'm just not comfortable with possible commercial re-use as I understand the GFDL to allow it. (Though I only started looking into the license ten minutes ago.) I <3 creative commons It should not be necessary to supply any such notice; the wiki administrators should be glad to take it down at a simple request. The GFDL does allow such reuse (as long as such use also allows others to distribute it freely under the GFDL). So, they could make a book, and sell it; but people would be allowed to copy your work from that book and distribute it freely as well. I'm actually against licenses that don't allow commercial use why? The GFDL was chosen for Wikipedia specifically to allow commercial use. Well, the argument is that that is a lessening of the freedom. yeah If people provide a service that others are willing to pay for, there shouldn't be a problem. Yes, they could get "rich off your back", but thanks to the continuation of the license, anything they do could be duplicated by others, for less. if I submit my works to a wiki that forbids commercial use and someone else edits it, I can't use it its modified form in a commercial work without that user's consent (there are arguments here regarding "Tivoisation" but that's the general situation) But meanwhile they still profit off my hard work. I'm fine with that in many cases, but I want to be able to decide that on a per-case basis. And here it's a very hypothetical case, but yeah, I guess I'm not happy to just sign my rights away. I am glad if someone can (say) take my photos and make money from them. I get attribution, they get money for providing an additional service. Everyone wins. :-) Thanks for helping me get my thoughts clear on this. svl: Yep. And that's your right to choose. --Aan`allein 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :Since you appear to be only sporadically active here, I've gone ahead and "removed" the content of the articles in question. Since the content still appears in the history of those articles, I _do_ request that you completely delete the pages once you see this. -- Aan`allein 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC) :: Sorry for the delay, thought I responded earlier but guess I didn't finish saving the reply. I completely deleted the pages now. :: General note about the GFDL: If something does get licensed under it then any distributors are required to give credit to all original authors, and anyone can freely redistribute copies or derivative works. Unless you'd hoped to make money off of what you wrote (perhaps with web ads?) there'd be virtually no risk of it being used commercially by others because very few people are willing to pay for something they can already get for free. One of the reasons the GFDL allows commercial use is so someone can e.g. charge a few bucks for burning a CD full of stuff. --Gherald 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)